Quite worrisome indeed. I should see if similar statutes are being considered in other legislatures.
If I’m reading this correctly, the law is saying it’s illegal to film “if there is an arrest being made”. That says to me that you can film up until the words “you’re under arrest” are uttered.
So if I’m being pulled over for speeding in a hick town, I can have someone in my car record the entire incident (just like the police dashcam), and only stop if they the “magic wods”.
Does this sort of service exist on any cell phone, where any recording made is sent to a server immediately so the police can’t confiscate your phone and erase the recording?
Sounds like a service that needs to exist.
I believe only evidence that is the result of improper state action is inadmissible. If Nixon found something in the watergate hotel that could be used as evidence, it would not be excluded.
Almost anything you do in plain sight has no expectation of privacy. I think there is a case where some guy was growing pot in the middle of a corn field (imagine a pot field surrounded by a quarter mile think border of corn). The cops flew over the field and busted the guy using high resolution photography.
With that said you can pass any goofy law you like as long as it isn’t unconstitutional and I don’t see the freedom of speech issue here. If you can outlaw paparazzi then why can’t you outlaw this?
Arrest can occur without the words “you’re under arrest.”
Who said you can outlaw paparazzi? What are you referring to?
How so? Doesn’t the arrestee have to be informed that they’re being arrested?
Well, I’d imagine that if you got into a fight with the police, and got knocked out, they could arrest you while you were out. It wouldn’t make much sense to have to wait until they regained consciousness.
[Oversimplification]You have certain rights under an arrest situation. Courts have held that you are under arrest when certain conditions are met. While being told by a policeman “you are under arrest” is sufficient to trigger the condition of being under arrest, it is not necessary.
I was under the impression that if I ask a police officer if I’m under arrest, that they have to answer yes or no.
If they say “no”, my camera is still running.
Ah, my great aunt told be about running into things like that during her holidays in the Soviet Union.
Oh come on, that makes for such an obvious Soviet Russia joke I’m not going to even… OK yes I am.
In Soviet Russia, police film YOU!
What I found most disturbing in the op’s linked article is that the Chicago court dismissed the charges of peddling without a street license and is pursuing the illegal recording of the person’s OWN ARREST which is a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.
I don’t find this acceptable in any form. It seems to me that anybody in Chicago who cared should show up to the court house on the day of Christopher Drew’s trial with vuvuzela horns and make themselves heard.
You would think the police would want their interactions taped; that way if there’s a dispute over who did what, roll the tape.
So if I got pulled over and became belligerant with the officer and then swore I didn’t, I wonder if video from the camera in the police car would be admissible since I never gave my consent to be taped. For that matter, if your house or business is burglarized and the security camera takes a clear picture of them but only while they’re on the street and off of your property, is it admissible?
I am torn.
I like the idea of citizens being able to tape the misdeeds of police officers, and it seems to me like the right to make such videos ought to be constitutionally protected.
On the other hand, from the police officer’s angle, I can see how it would be annoying and distracting to have ten or twelve jackasses crowding in to film you with their cell phone cameras every time you make an arrest in a public place. (As happened with the recent jaywalking face-punch episode in Seattle. Count the number of people with cell phone cameras going at the end of the video.)
You can outlaw paparazzi?
None of which has anything at all to do with filming. You could have a crowd of gawkers completely free of recording devices and it would be equally annoying to the cops. Cops just don’t want to be caught doing bad things.
Clearly this is an awful trend. Clearly it’s in everyone’s best interest, both the arrestee and the police force, to have all encounters recorded. And equating it with wiretap is severely weak reasoning. If they really want to do this they should make legislation specifically addressing this. And I hope one of these cases will make it to the Supreme Court to be settled once and for all.
What’s the Supreme Court supposed to say?
I think it is an unreasonable restriction on freedom of the press, therefore a first amendment issue. If no one can video the police, that means the press cannot video the police, and they cannot report on current events involving the police, or police misconduct. I think it would have a chilling effect on a free press as check on the power of government.
I think the recording of audio is the main issue in these cases, which is what allows them to fall under a state’s wiretapping laws. The linked article about the Massachusetts lawsuit makes that distinction.